Veg vs Meat
Transcript of Veg vs Meat
“Well from the start you seem to be under the assumption that animals KNOW they are being
kept for food as well as they know their children will be also”
The only assumption here is your need to project a disconnect with nature/animals so you can
justify the butchering of them that you may feel are lesser, within the first lines of your post
in response to my post, are you seriously suggesting that animals are not aware of their
surroundings? or that mother and calf are not connected? Or that an animal knows it’s not
free because it can’t move and go where it would wish to? They “may” not be aware of the
finer details of what’s going on, but they know something is wrong, something is off, Go
outside and observe nature as if you have never seen it before, remove the blind fold of Ego
centric aberrance… What you are responding with is an attempt to furnish a life style choice
with flawed logic, another expression of cognitive dissonance, “we all do it, some to a greater
or lesser degree, but it is only when we except this about ourselves can one then open the
door to change”
Post from a FB friend “I also thought if Im going to eat meat, it was cowardly to disengage myself
from the animal and wanted to eat meat that I raised and killed so I know that it was killed in a
humane way. If I didn’t kill my roosters they would fight and mangle each other. The easiest way to
kill them was gunshot and not while they were roosting because of course it freaked the others out and
no one felt safe . I would try to shoot one when they were in the woods away from the others. THEY
HID BEHIND TREES like people The others knew too because everyone got quiet. Very ashamed of
myself when I did this. So I quit eating meat period” <<this is a person that has consciousness and is
connected to emotion, self and nature…
10 Animals that have been proven to be self-aware, “personally I think Crows and Honey
Badgers should be on that list” this does not mean that other animals are not self-aware, this
is still interim, a variety other animals are not self-aware “I think this may be the case” but
that by now means is concrete, there for the potential of self-awareness in the creatures that
have that connection maybe a connection that we have lost or that we can’t understand or a
connection that only few can resonate with, but then the understanding of what self-
awareness is, is not as clear cut as one might first think “side issue but worth a mention” but
if it is proven that some animals are not self-aware, then surly as “human beings” a
“potentially” superior species that has the capacity for compassion, ingenuity, healing,
companionship, we should be more inclined towards stewardship rather than butchering
defenceless animals… Animals offer up some of the greatest gifts, teachers, examples, their
state of “being” guardians, protectors, forewarning, the list of the gifts animals can give up to
us is extensive, but meat is not on that list…
10 Animals that have been proven to be self-aware
• Humans
• Orangutans
• Chimpanzees
• Gorillas
• Bottlenose Dolphins
• Elephants
• Orcas
• Bonobos
• Rhesus Macaques
• European Magpies
http://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/why-animal-rights/#ixzz31CpLIchS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5LfYHJWUtE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mn6kJJfNLVA
“ 2 examples of many, one only needs to go out and “observe nature” and make that
connection in the same way you have connected with your Dog your companion…
Every creature with a will to live has a right to live free from pain and suffering. Animal
rights is not just a philosophy—it is a social movement that challenges society’s traditional
view that all nonhuman animals exist solely for human use. As PETA founder Ingrid
Newkirk has said, “When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a
dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife.” Only prejudice allows us to
deny others the rights that we expect to have for ourselves. Whether it’s based on race,
gender, sexual orientation, or species, prejudice is morally unacceptable. If you wouldn’t eat
a dog, why eat a pig? Dogs and pigs have the same capacity to feel pain, “not forgetting it is
not just about pain, it is also the totality of that animals life, if it is free or not” but it is
prejudice based on species that allows us to think of one animal as a companion and the other
as dinner. <<that cuts through a lot of crap and lays it out directly and plainly on the table..
“pardon the pun”
“You mention the "toll it takes on nature, logistics, fuel, carbon foot prints, the list goes on...
What about all the chemicals produced strictly for plants, pesticides , fungicides and
herbicides or chemical nutrients/additives that destroy the environment way more than fossil
fuels are from the meat industry in which the produce industry is just as much to blame on
that regards”
^ is an empty point, if farming was done “holistically” none of this would be relevant, this is
a pseudo juxtaposition, so there for farming per-say is not the problem, it is the way it has
been directed and manipulated by big Agra and its counter parts, “you know this” we have
chatted about this before, this is a form of flawed logic and self-denial that you seem to be
expressing here. Industries have been set up to be disruptive/destructive as this is part of the
globalist agenda, one could argue that if the meat industries was set to be truly holistic
“resources based not economically based” the global environmental effects would be
drastically reduce “to a point” and I would agree, but then if you was to holistically
implement both methods, farming for veg and fruit Vs Animals/meat for consumption, Veg
and Fruit far out weight and supersede anything meet can offer, when you factor in Veg and
fruit are far more nutritious and balanced and offers up other nutrients, vitamins, riboflavin,
complex carbs, anti-ageing, cell repair, improved memory, improved moods, cognitive
functions, anti-cancer, anti-carcinogenic, DNA repair, immune system boosters and fortifiers,
the quality of protein in Veg as opposed to meat, also sustainability factors, The morale
factor, when one considers all of this, there is no comparison, Meat becomes redundant! Also
you can live a very healthy life, “ and I mean healthy to excesses” on an excellent balanced
diet only eating fruits veg, “certain grains” ground produce, one can have excellent all round
health doing this, you cannot live on a meat diet alone without serious issues to health, this is
very telling in of itself and is another red flag… also meat is not a source of fiber, and
stresses the kidneys and also is loaded with “certain types” of saturated fats that “may” cause
many heart problem’s weight gain and so on, these effects can be mitigated “to a point” if
holistic rearing is involved but it only limits this negative effect it does not purge it, and the
bottom line is the animals will still have to be butchered for an industry that does not need to
exists, so again meat is an abysmal failure in this regard…
If one studies ancient civilizations “not talking official history books here, this is off the
beaten track” you will find there were MASSIVE cities, towns, districts, dwellings built by
rivers and some had populations of at least a couple of million, these ppl were agricultural,
they were farmers, growers, planters, a very small amount of meat was in their diet, but that
is mostly due to the fact that animals do get old and die, and it is better to use it then waste it,
<<this is sustainable, the animals were worked with because of the gifts they offered up, the
animal was seen as a part of the family because of the benefits offered up, they were seen as
having value, not for the protein in their meat but for everything else the animal could assist
in, these ancient civilizations had none of the toxic methods and modern day crap we have
today because “in part” they were connected to the land and their agricultural ancestry and
knew how to grow in sustainable ways, all the tricks and tips “this is all but gone today” what
has survived is very limited but seems to be making its way back, they understood and
respected the animals and the land, and the fact that the vast majority of their diet was
Vegetarian based I think makes the point better than I can, one can track back and observe a
sea change of debauch from about the time of the Babylonian empire and this is mostly
where the meat diet really took hold and was magnified and then social imparted via
indoctrination into other civilizations and or cultures, a lot of the debauch and need for
domination of nature, other humans and animals start to rise up about this time, indicative of
the meat diet, one can see the mentality that some of these toxic civilizations had, so going
back to your point about farming practices, there is a totally viable sustainable agricultural
farming methods how do you think the ancients did it?!... <<rhetorical
“It is to the point that in most regions can't even grow food in the soil anymore. " If you was
to get a plant and cut one of the stems off for food, the plant does not die, it does not bleed to
death, it does not have its parents morn over its dead bleeding body, nope, it regrows the
missing limb and picks up where it left off" We know almost nothing of plant life. Yes we
know they cry out when injured so” how can one assume they can't mourn their companions?
Does pain not show emotion ? When you cut a limb off a plant it does not grow back but
continues to grow as WE do if a limb is cut off. Sure we may bleed out but it is not a fact.
High probability without help yes. And anytime you do take from a plant that plant is stresses
out and stops to grow until its "wound" is sealed. Just as our body heals through the scabbing
process so does a plant. Plants feel happy and sad and I can tell the difference in each of
mine”
^^^ The last part about plants feeling emotion’s and such I agree with, respond well to be
sung to, proven that it has positive benefits for the plant, “sound resonance” like I said I
looked into this some time ago, and yes I agree, my comment about “plants don’t tend to
morn another plant” is assumption, based on my understanding via observation “with the 5
senses as I would exist in nature” with a need to expand my knowledge base, rather than a
need to find convincing pseudo facts to support my self-denigrating culinary meat based
lifestyle… Maybe this mourning may connect and take place in a different way than one
might understand, “if it does take place at all” and for sure more study needs to be done on
this, but the point is, we have a mutual affinity for animals, in so many ways we are alike, we
bleed blood, give birth, feel pain and joy, morn the loss of kin we have beating hearts, many
more examples, you don’t see plants crying in distress because a leaf has been plucked and
showing obvious emotional upset, tears, vocalized distress and so on, signs of trauma “other
than physical damage or infection one might observe on the plant” it is amazing how on one
hand you talk about the feelings of plants and such, and their rights insinuated with “plants
feel discomfort when cultivated, so you can’t say chit, it’s ok to butcher animals” a foe
argument to furnish the redundant meat diet, but you have no qualms about subjecting an
earthling of this planet to a death sentence so you can say >>yummy.. from what we can
ascertain via our 5 senses it is very obvious that animals are far closer to us then plants, very
reminiscent of humans in our modalities of being, not to say that plants should not be treated
with respect, or that they are somehow lesser, indeed plants are an integral part of a healthy
holistic thriving society and I have a very high respect for plants, if I could get my sustenance
from the sun and other forms of ambient and potential energy I would, and would not eat
food altogether, unfortunately this is not the case, so the next best choice that is in balance
with nature and minimizes stress, discomfort and cruelty is the veg/vegan based diet, trying
to justify the butchering of animals by way of comparing the harvesting of plants is the same
tired old retort that duplicitous meat eaters “try” to use, but on closer inspection one quickly
see’s this is no counter point of true merit…
We can only go on what we know and understand, of course there is a deeper aspect here,
and as stated before, we have to eat, plants are far more adapted to this in terms of a
sustainable holistic sources, viable nutritional, far more economic in almost ever nuance as
opposed to animals for food consumption..
You are making the comparison between plants and humans and healing in response to my
point about plants in comparison with meat…, na ahh, back up buddy!!,this is about food for
consumption, so the comparison has to be made Veg Vs animal “in the context of this thread”
cut off a cow or a sheep’s leg leave it in the field and it will die, so when you say >>> “When
you cut a limb off a plant it does not grow back but continues to grow as WE do if a limb is
cut off. Sure we may bleed out but it is not a fact. High probability without help yes. And
anytime you do take from a plant that plant is stresses out and stops to grow until its "wound"
is sealed”… <<< you are brushing over the point, comparing one irrelevant thing to another,
“how humans heal and how plants heal” and you are actually making my point for me, the
point is, parts of a plant can be culled for consumption and the damage is minimal i.e. it
grows back or continues to yield bloom on a different part of the plant, the plant does not die
and can recoup… If you chop the leg or head off a cow or sheep, it will bleed out, it is as
good as, plants can shed limbs, branches old foliage, animals cant shed legs and feet and their
heads “lizards tails is irrelevant here” so this point you are trying to make here is ridiculous,
there is no solid comparison here, “other than the main theme in regards to respecting all life”
if your concern for plants in regards to being stressed and mistreated is why you don’t eat or
support a veg diet, then what about the animals who’s suffering is far more visceral and real
“in relation to the human condition” and can be detected by us?, on a very real emotional
level?, trying to trade one for the other, trying to morale validate one action in juxtaposition
to another, One option is viable sustainable and far less cruel, the other is just a toxic imposed
addictive way of life that ppl want to cling to…
“And you bring up the morality of things... Morals differ with EVERY society and change
with that society as it is manipulated by/to whichever means so all the mom and dads
mourning over their dead bloody young death and suffering morals are a moot point plain and
simple and only play on emotional heart strings for the vegetarian propaganda”
^^^^ A lot of misunderstanding and temp patches I am seeing here, if one is centred in true
self/soul and is of a higher self-morality, internally, they are hardly going to act out in
immoral ways to other humans or animals, as above so below, the external is always
secondary the internal is always primary “self-love, self-understanding” the model of
morality you are using/describing is absolutely spot on “props” it is based on the super ego,
the social persona “if the group says its right, then it is right, even if it is wrong” << that is
pseudo morality, collectivized morality, but that is not what I am talking about or not close
to where I am coming from, and has no standing or merit here, you seem disenfranchised
with morality because of the bull chit model you have been exposed to, I can totally
understand that, but then if you don’t factor “true inner self morality” then you will never
truly understand what has been repressed, sequestered, shut down and what has been put in
its place as a toxic prop, this may go some way in explaining the contradictions you are
expressing…
" you can eat plants and poop out the seeds “animals do this all the time” this is a form of
propagation, so nature is actually set up in this way," Do animals not eat meat ? So Nature is
ALSO set up that way. ALL in harmony with all else.”
^^^ More delusion and flawed logic, in one instance you talk about the right to butcher
animals and suggest it is ok because they are lesser, and because there’s this pseudo “humane
animal farming” that somehow makes up for the fact that the animal is a slave and is going to
be butchered regardless, this is sugar coating to delude one’s self that they can still eat meat
and not have a guilty conscious about it, “one can only hope they would still have a
conscious about it, that is an indication of soul/self ” there is nothing harmonious about the
vast majority of the meat trade as it stands today, and yes of course “some” animals eat meat,
“but then a lot of animals diets are vegetarian based” btw the largest land mammals on the
planet are all vegetarian, obviously plant protein is not only effective it is extremely viable
“If we weren’t meat eaters our teeth would also be different. They are set up for both
chewing and tearing. And how do we know that animals "Strive to live" any more than a
plant does ? If plants didn’t strive to live they wouldn't do things like send shoots off to
sprout in other locations to spread itself. They wouldn't drop their seeds to reproduce. In
many regions a lot of varieties of foods can NOT be grown. Like the one I am in. Fruits don't
grow so well here where as leafy green shade lovers do. Without a grocery store you cannot
sustain yourself in a healthy manner on ONLY the stuff you grow in your garden alone any
more than I can just on eating the Animals I raise.”
^ Ahh now we are getting to it, as a vegetarian I am thankful for the teeth that can tear, and
they have its use in a none meat diet, again “we are meat eaters because of teeth” this is just
flawed logic and the same old excuses and bad info doing the rounds, but then again these
teeth that tear also service eating certain veg and such, if you factor in the raw diet, “ancient
civilizations were more aligned to this then eating meat” one can really see why these tearing
teeth are also needed, so this argument about tearing teeth and meat is moot, I will say again,
“I know what all the excuses are because I have used them myself”… Yes of course animals
strive to live, as do plants, I don’t see the point you are trying to make? If it comes down to a
lesser of 2 evils “in regards to nutrition” then obviously plants are the better choice, when
you add in the morality factor and superior nutrition, pretty much on every check point, the
sustainability factor the natural balance factor, it is a no brainer, The point about things will
grow here and wont grow there, has “in part” always been the case, “also levels of
contamination and nutritionally soil depletion/bad farming practices in the modern context”
all adds and causes disruption… Ancient civilizations were blooming and growing in
sustainable ways that were in balance with nature, much of the probs with growing food
today is linked into the state of mother earth, the soils being nutrient deficient “for the most
part” hence the fertilizers and crap they keep chucking on plants and soil, then there’s the
mass soil contamination, the chemtrails, the toxic electromagnetic soup we are embedded in,
and of course dead water full of crap falling from the sky’s, a whole list of other stuff that
disrupt effective horticulture and agricultural processes and our connection to mother earth,
this all plays into disrupting this sustainable type of holistic independence to keep ppl tied to
the meat diet and dependent and aligned to “The systems way of thinking” that is based in
toxicity, waist, debauched life styles, domination, a mind-set of might is right and affinity to
violence “in all its permutations” ….
“Fruits don't grow so well here where as leafy green shade lovers do. Without a grocery store
you can not sustain yourself in a healthy manner on ONLY the stuff you grow in your garden
alone anymore than I can just on eating the Animals I raise.”
^^^ And that is the point of the agenda, to make it so difficult for ppl to embrace a way of
living that frees them up and raises their consciousness i-e vegetarian/vegan and raises their
harmonic and spiritual vibrations, this is all by design, the fact that ppl are being arrested for
trying to grow organic food, or growing food in their gardens or that hemp is pretty much
illegal but yet the establishment fully backs and puts out the toxic chemical meat based
lifestyle, should be a massive red flag for you, also with things like hydroponics and other
“viable” systems can make growing veg and fruits far more attainable and doable than ever,
the amount of supressed technology in this regard alone could free up humanity from meat
based diet that creates servitude, dependency, addiction, all round bad health, and
debauchery… ….
"Also if humans had to butcher there own food or grow it, I think you will find the majority
would rather grow their own food" How can you even say this.... Until the processed food
crave started this is how EVERYONE IN THE WORLD ate”
^^^ you are making this up as you go along, this may be a small portion within historical
timer line reflects this, but if you dig a lill deeper for facts rather than anecdotes that support
your miasma, you will clearly see that what you are saying is a misnomer, and I have done
the study on this, please see previous post about the rise of the meat diet and Babylon, what
you are asserting is all the conditioning and mind control coming from the movies the
schooling system and so on, The agenda players would love the masses to think this is the
way ppl always ate, because it supports their agenda, this is no different than the Vatican
declaring the world is flat, or that religion claims the history of man is only 7000 years old,
same gig different day…
“......again emotions nothing more. ...”
^^ Telling comment, you seem to be down playing emotions as irrelevant, well emotional
intelligence, intelligence of the heart is an aspect of consciousness of self/soul/heart,
soul/self/heart has perception independent from the cognitive process, ppl who are devoid of
this, have no probs brutalizing and subjugating other beings, “animals or human” to their
whim, because of the lack of compassion and understanding, education of the mind without
education of the heart is a dangerous combination, “just take a look around the so called
civilized world” I often find ppl that can’t understand that “earthlings” are not here for
mistreatment and consumption of humans” this lack of understanding and the mind set is a
corruption of the connection to nature, an aberration that the system does well to play on,
such ppl have a serious lack of “true” compassion, empathy and emotional intelligence, on
the one hand they will stroke a dog and call it friend, on the other they would not think twice
about butchering or supporting the butchery and mistreatment of animals….
"For example, the amount of land, water, energy and resources it takes to raise animals to fed
everyone on the planet is unsustainable." Again how does this differ from the amount of
Land, water and energy that it takes to grow food to sustain everyone on the planet which in
fact we don't in either situation with the amount of waste there is”
^ moot point “I have added some info that deals with this further on in this summer” the
system is set up to be wasteful and destructive, if the holistic method was embraced none of
this would be a factor, but always the eating of meat requires the butchering and incarceration
of animals no matter how one plays it, and again, the nutrition factor makes meat redundant
when compared to fruit, veg, spices, herbs and such
“I am guessing you grow all your own food so you are not buying FDA/USDA regulated
organic but true organics from your own garden? Then you know how much water it takes to
raise your gardens which are FAR more than I ever used on the farm for our animals. We are
talking hundreds gallons in difference if not thousands depending on the amount of each and
also depends on if those animals are Free range which means they would have access to
water from some type of watering hole or filled trough And you would know the amount of
land that it would take to sustain ones self let alone an entire family just growing veggies and
fruits, Energy I am stumped on”
^^^^ many highly efficient systems to cater for this, none of them are being implemented
“on mass” in the modern world, the points you raise are not due to growing veg and such, it is
because of the methods used that serve the agenda, wasteful, destructive, not nature
resourced based, in the same way that we don’t need to pay for energy because there are
many systems out there, Proven, viable, sustainable, free ultra-economical have been bought
and shelved by the corporation so they can maintain their hegemony of their corporate
infrastructure and keep ppl under the heal of their globalist boot and in servitude to
government, look at the story of Nikola Tesla, Wilhelm Reich, and many more besides, “If it
facilitates despotism, scarcity, domination, hierarchy, control, absurdity and so on, it will be
made abundant. If it supports balanced growth, freedom, true expression, compassion,
abundance, true beauty, nature and so on, it will be shut down and made unavailable” it is
amazing to me that in all of this you have not once mentioned that fact, and I know you are
aware of it, spurious at best… another expression of cognitive dissonance…
“Don't know of any energy used to raise animals unless you are raising animals not suitable
for the region in which one lives. Other than Human energy in which it takes A LOT more to
sustain a healthy garden.....Resources?” which are those that haven’t been gone over prior?
^^^^ This is so shrouded in miasma and distorted observation, the fact that nutrition in meat
don’t come close to veg and fruits, this has not been taken into account not even lightly
touched on, you seem to be really scrapping the bottom of the barrel to find some
justification, maybe I am not understanding your point, but so far all I am seeing is self-
fulfilling miasma, no mention of the loss of ancestral agriculture, the lost methods, the
lost/sequestered gnosis, butchered by the establishment to create historical amnesia, the
implanting and conditioning to push ppl towards a meat diet, and to down play vegetables
and fruits, the change in earth climates, the dying off of bees, the polluted water, and all the
other stuff that imped the delicate global balance that in turns has massive effects on flowers,
growing plants and maintaining gardens, nature has it all work out, it always has, again the
ancients did not have half the technology we do today “debatable, but that aside” but they
managed just fine, so obviously the points you are raising here is about the impeding
structure of society that pushes ppl into uneconomical none sustainable methods, none of this
is brought out in your response’s, this is rather interesting considering you are aware of these
factors? “ppl who are avoiding the internal work/self work often see what they want and find
facts to fit their theories, even if they are inaccurate”…
Both the meat-based average American diet and the lactoovovegetarian diet require
significant quantities of nonrenewable fossil energy to produce. “remember this is all under a
system that seek to not be balanced and economical, but even in this retarded version/system,
Veg is still more sustainable then meat, not adding in other contributing factors that really
leaves meat at the start line” both food systems are not sustainable in the long term based on
heavy fossil energy requirements. However, the meat-based diet requires more energy, land,
and water resources than the lactoovovegetarian diet. In this limited sense, the
lactoovovegetarian diet is more sustainable than the average American meat-based diet
<<<this is just one of many studies done to show the sustainability factors, this is not a
solution but even in this adulterated form, Veg still comes out tops
Raising animals for food requires massive amounts of land, food, energy, and water and
contributes to animal suffering.
Land
According to the United Nations, raising animals for food (including land used for grazing
and land used to grow feed crops) now uses a staggering 30 percent of the Earth’s land
mass. More than 260 million acres of U.S. forest have been cleared to create cropland to
grow grain to feed farmed animals, and according to scientists at the Smithsonian Institution,
the equivalent of seven football fields of land is bulldozed worldwide every minute to create
more room for farmed animals.
Livestock grazing is the number one reason that plant species in the United States become
threatened and go extinct, and it also leads to soil erosion and eventual desertification that
renders once-fertile land barren.
While factory farms are ruining our land, commercial fishing methods such as bottom
trawling and long-lining have virtually emptied millions of square miles of ocean and pushed
many marine species to the brink of extinction. Commercial fishing boats indiscriminately
pull as many fish as they can out of the sea, leaving ecological devastation and the bodies of
none target animals in their wake.
Food
Raising animals for food is grossly inefficient, because while animals eat large quantities of
grain, soybeans, oats, and corn, they only produce comparatively small amounts of meat,
dairy products, or eggs in return. This is why more than 70 percent of the grain and cereals
that we grow in this country are fed to farmed animals.
It takes up to 13 pounds of grain to produce just 1 pound of meat, and even fish on fish farms
must be fed up to 5 pounds of wild-caught fish to produce 1 pound of farmed fish flesh.
Energy
It takes more than 11 times as much fossil fuel to make one calorie from animal protein as it
does to make one calorie from plant protein. Raising animals for food gobbles up precious
energy. Simply add up the energy-intensive stages of raising animals for food: (1) grow
massive amounts of corn, grain, and soybeans (with all the required tilling, irrigation, crop-
dusters, etc.); (2) transport the grain and soybeans to feed manufacturers on gas-guzzling 18-
wheelers; (3) operate the feed mills (requiring massive energy expenditures); (4) transport the
feed to the factory farms (again, in gas-guzzling vehicles); (5) operate the factory farms; (6)
truck the animals many miles to slaughter; (7) operate the slaughterhouse; (8) transport the
meat to processing plants; (9) operate the meat-processing plants; (10) transport the meat to
grocery stores; (11) keep the meat refrigerated or frozen in the stores until it’s sold.
Water
Between watering the crops that farmed animals eat, providing drinking water for billions of
animals each year, and cleaning away the filth in factory farms, transport trucks, and
slaughterhouses, the farmed animal industry places a serious strain on our water supply.
Nearly half of all the water used in the United States goes to raising animals for food. In
2008, John Anthony Allan, a professor at King’s College London and the winner of the
prestigious Stockholm Water Prize, urged people worldwide to go vegetarian because of the
tremendous waste of water involved with eating animals.
It takes more than 2,400 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of meat, while growing 1 pound
of wheat only requires 25 gallons. You save more water by not eating a pound of meat than
you do by not showering for six months!
Rain Forest
According to Greenpeace, all the wild animals and trees in more than 2.9 million acres of the
Amazon rain forest in Brazil were destroyed in the 2004-2005 crop season in order to grow
crops that are used to feed chickens and other animals in factory farms.
One of the main crops grown in the rain forest is soy—in fact, much of the enormous amount
of soy that is needed to feed the world’s farmed animals now comes from the rain forest.
(The soy that is used in veggie burgers, tofu, and soy milk in the United States is almost
exclusively grown domestically, not in the Amazon.)
If we simply ate soy and other plant foods ourselves instead of feeding them to farmed
animals, we would not need to raise nearly as many crops, and we could eliminate the need to
decimate the rain forest.
Pollution
What do we get back from all the grain, fossil fuels, and water that go into making animal
products? Tons and tons of feces. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
the runoff from factory farms pollutes our waterways more than all other industrial sources
combined.
Fecal Contamination
Animals raised for food in the U.S. produce far more excrement than the entire U.S.
human population, roughly 89,000 pounds per second, all without the benefit of waste-
treatment systems. According to Oregon State University agriculture professor Peter Cheeke,
factory farming constitutes “a frontal assault on the environment, with massive groundwater
and air pollution problems.”
There are no meaningful federal guidelines that regulate how factory farms treat, store, and
dispose of the trillions of pounds of concentrated, untreated animal excrement that they
produce each year. This waste may be left to rot in huge lagoons or sprayed over crop fields;
both of these disposal methods result in runoff that contaminates the soil and water and kills
fish and other wildlife. The concentration of parasites, bacteria, and chemical contaminants in
animal excrement can wreak havoc on the ecosystems affected by farm runoff and can sicken
people who live near these farms.
The Water We Drink
Many of the millions of pounds of excrement and other bodily waste produced by farmed
animals every day in the U.S. are stored in sprawling, brown lagoons. These lagoons often
seep or spill into surrounding waterways and kill massive numbers of fish and other animals.
The EPA reports that chicken, hog, and cattle excrement has polluted 35,000 miles of rivers
in 22 states and contaminated groundwater in 17 states. When 25 million gallons of putrid
hog urine and faeces spilled into a North Carolina river in 1995, between 10 million and 14
million fish died as an immediate result.
In West Virginia and Maryland, scientists have discovered that male fish are growing ovaries,
and they suspect that this deformity is the result of factory farm runoff from drug-laden
chicken faeces.
The massive amounts of faeces, fish carcasses, and antibiotic-laced fish food that settle below
fish farm cages also contribute to water pollution and have actually caused the ocean floor to
rot in some areas.
The Air We Breathe
A Consumers Union study in Texas found that animal feedlots in the state produce more than
14 million pounds of particulate dust every year and that the dust “contains biologically
active organisms such as bacteria, mold, and fungi from the faeces and the feed.” The
massive amounts of excrement produced by these farms emit toxic gases such as hydrogen
sulphide and ammonia into the air.
When the cesspools holding tons of urine and faeces get full, factory farms frequently dodge
water pollution limits by spraying liquid manure into the air, creating mists that are carried
away by the wind. People who live nearby are forced to inhale the toxins and pathogens from
the sprayed manure. In addition, according to a report by the California State Senate, “Studies
have shown that [animal waste] lagoons emit toxic airborne chemicals that can cause
inflammatory, immune, irritation and neurochemical problems in humans.”…
In Central America, 40 percent of all the rainforests have been cleared or burned down in the
last 40 years, mostly for cattle pasture to feed the export market—often for U.S. beef
burgers…. Meat is too expensive for the poor in these beef-exporting countries, yet in some
cases cattle have ousted highly productive traditional agriculture.
—John Revington in World Rainforest Report
The Center for International Forestry Research reports that rapid growth in the sales of
Brazilian beef has led to accelerated destruction of the Amazon rainforest. “In a nutshell,
cattle ranchers are making mincemeat out of Brazil’s Amazon rainforests,” says the Center’s
director-general, David Kaimowitz.
—Environmental News Service
Grassland destruction followed, as herds of domesticated animals were expanded and the
environments on which wild animals such as bison and antelope had thrived were trampled
and replanted with monoculture grass for large-scale cattle grazing. In a review of Richard
Manning’s 1995 book Grassland: The History, Biology, Politics, and Promise of the
American Prairie, Pulitzer Prize-winning writer James Risser observes: “Many experience
anguish at the wreckage of clear-cut mixed-tree forest, destined to be replaced by a single-
species tree farm. Few realize, says Manning, that a waving field of golden wheat is the same
thing— a crop monoculture inhabiting what once was a rich and diverse but now ‘clear-cut’
grassland.”
Grassland covers more land area than any other ecosystem in North America; no other
system has suffered such a massive loss of life.
—Richard Manning in Grassland
Another solution [to grassland depletion in Africa] would be a shift from cattle grazing
toward game ranching. Antelopes, unlike cattle, are adapted to semi-arid lands. They do not
need to trek daily to waterholes and so cause less trampling and soil compaction…. Antelope
dung comes in the form of small, dry pellets, which retain their nitrogen and efficiently
fertilize the soil. Cows, in contrast, produce large, flat, wet droppings, which heat up and
quickly lose much of their nitrogen (in the form of ammonia) to the atmosphere…. An
experimental game ranch in Kenya has been a great economic success while simultaneously
restoring the range.
—Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and Gretchen C. Daily in The Stork & The Plow
Fresh water, like land, seemed inexhaustible for most of the first 10 millennia of civilization.
So, it didn’t seem to matter how much a cow drank. But a few years ago, water experts
calculated that we humans are now taking half the available fresh water on the planet—
leaving the other half to be divided among a million or more species. Since we depend on
many of those species for our own survival (they provide all the food we eat and oxygen we
breathe, among other services), that hogging of water poses a dilemma. If we break it down,
species by species, we find that the heaviest water use is by the animals we raise for meat.
One of the easiest ways to reduce demand for water is to reduce the amount of meat we eat.
The standard diet of a person in the United States requires 4,200 gallons of water per day (for
animals’ drinking water, irrigation of crops, processing, washing, cooking, etc.). A person on
a vegan diet requires only 300 gallons a day.
—Richard H. Schwartz in Judaism and Vegetarianism
A report from the International Water Management Institute, noting that 840 million of the
world’s people remain undernourished, recommends finding ways to produce more food
using less water. The report notes that it takes 550 liters of water to produce enough flour for
one loaf of bread in developing countries…but up to 7,000 liters of water to produce 100
grams of beef.
—UN Commission on Sustainable Development, “Water—More Nutrition Per Drop,” 2004
Let’s say you take a shower every day…and your showers average seven minutes…and the
flow rate through your shower head is 2 gallons per minute…. You would use, at that rate,
[5,110] gallons of water to shower every day for a year. When you compare that figure,
[5,110] gallons of water, to the amount the Water Education Foundation calculates is used in
the production of every pound of California beef (2,464 gallons),you realize something
extraordinary. In California today, you may save more water by not eating a pound of beef
than you would by not showering for six entire months.
—John Robbins in The Food Revolution: How Your Diet Can Help Save Your Life and the
World
Waste disposal, like water supply, seemed to have no practical limitations. There were
always new places to dump, and for centuries most of what was dumped either conveniently
decomposed or disappeared from sight. Just as you didn’t worry about how much water a
cow drank, you didn’t worry about how much it excreted. But today, the waste from our
gargantuan factory farms overwhelms the absorptive capacity of the planet. Rivers carrying
livestock waste are dumping so much excess nitrogen into bays and gulfs that large areas of
the marine world are dying (see Environmental Intelligence, “Ocean Dead Zones
Multiplying,” p. 10). The easiest way to reduce the amount of excrement flowing down the
Mississippi and killing the Gulf of Mexico is to eat less meat, thereby reducing the size of the
herds upstream in Iowa or Missouri.
Giant livestock farms, which can house hundreds of thousands of pigs, chickens, or cows,
produce vast amounts of waste. In fact, in the United States, these “factory farms” generate
more than 130 times the amount of waste that people do.
—Natural Resources Defense Council
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, livestock waste has polluted more
than 27,000 miles of rivers and contaminated groundwater in dozens of states.
—Natural Resources Defense Council
Nutrients in animal waste cause algal blooms, which use up oxygen in the water, contributing
to a “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico where there’s not enough oxygen to support aquatic
life. The dead zone stretched over 7,700 square miles during the summer of 1999.
—Natural Resources Defense Council
Energy consumption, until very recently, may have seemed to most of us to be an issue for
refrigerators, but not for the meat and milk inside. But as we give more attention to life-cycle
analysis of the things we buy, it becomes apparent that the journey that steak made to get to
your refrigerator consumed staggering amounts of energy along the way. We can begin the
cycle with growing the grain to feed the cattle, which requires a heavy input of petroleum-
based agricultural chemicals. There’s the fuel required to transport the cattle to slaughter, and
thence to market. Today, much of the world’s meat is hauled thousands of miles. And then,
after being refrigerated, it has to be cooked.
It takes the equivalent of a gallon of gasoline to produce a pound of grain-fed beef in the
United States. Some of the energy was used in the feedlot, or in transportation and cold
storage, but most of it went to fertilizing the feed grain used to grow the modern steer or
cow…. To provide the yearly average beef consumption of an American family of four
requires over 260 gallons of fossil fuel.
—“Meat Equals War,” web-site of Earth Save, Humboldt, California
It takes, on average, 28 calories of fossil fuel energy to produce 1 calorie of meat protein for
human consumption, [whereas] it takes only 3.3 calories of fossil- fuel energy to produce 1
calorie of protein from grain for human consumption.
—David Pimentel, Cornell University
The transition of world agriculture from food grain to feed grain represents a new form of
human evil, with consequences possibly far greater and longer lasting than any past
wrongdoing inflicted by men against their fellow human beings. Today, more than 70 percent
of the grain produced in the United States is fed to livestock, much of it to cattle.
—Jeremy Rifkin, Los Angeles Times, 27 May 2002
Feeding grain to animals is highly inefficient, and an absurd use of resources.
—Vaclav Smil, University of Manitoba
Global warming is driven by energy consumption, to the extent that the principal energy
sources are carbon-rich fuels that, when burned, emit carbon dioxide or other planet-
blanketing gases. As noted above, the production and delivery of meat helps drive up the use
of such fuels. But livestock also emit global-warming gases directly, as a by- product of
digestion. Cattle send a significant amount of methane, a potent global-warming gas, into the
air. The environmental group Earth Save recommends a major reduction in the world’s cattle
population, which currently numbers about 1.3 billion.
One ton of methane, the chief agricultural greenhouse gas, has the global warming potential
of 23 tons of carbon dioxide. A dairy cow produces about 75 kilograms of methane a year,
equivalent to over 1.5 [metric] tons of carbon dioxide. The cow, of course, is only doing what
comes naturally. But people are inclined to forget, it seems, that farming is an industry. We
cleared the land, sowed the pasture, bred the stock, and so on. It’s a human business, not a
natural one. We’re pretty good at it, which is why atmospheric concentrations of methane
increased by 150 percent over the past 250 years, while carbon dioxide concentrations
increased by 30 percent.
—Pete Hodgson, New Zealand Minister for Energy, Science, and Fisheries
There is a strong link between human diet and methane emissions from livestock…. As beef
consumption rises or falls, the number of livestock will, in general, also rise or fall, as will
the related methane emissions. Latin America has the highest regional emissions per capita,
due primarily to large cattle populations in the beef exporting countries (notably Brazil and
Argentina).
—United Nations Environment Programme, Unit on Climate Change
Belching, flatulent livestock emit 16 percent of the world’s annual production of methane, a
powerful greenhouse gas.
—Brian Halweil and Danielle Nierenberg in State of the World 2004
Fight Global Warming With Your Knife and Fork
—Article by Elysa Hammond in Sustainablebusiness.com
Food productivity of farmland, as noted above, is gradually falling behind population
growth. When Paul Ehrlich warned three decades ago that “hundreds of millions” of people
would starve, he turned out to have overstated the case—for now. (Only tens of millions
starved.) The green revolution, an infusion of fertilizers and mass-production techniques,
increased crop yields and bought us time. That, combined with more complete utilization of
arable land through intensified irrigation and fertilization, enabled us to more or less keep
pace with population growth for another generation. A little additional gain—but only a
little—may come from genetic engineering. Short of stabilizing population (which will take
another half century), only one major option remains: to cut back sharply on meat
consumption, because conversion of grazing land to food crops will increase the amount of
food produced. (Some argue that grazing can use land that is useless for crops, and in these
areas live- stock may continue to have a role, but large areas of arable land are now given to
cattle to roam and ruin.)
Let’s say we have 20,000 kcal [kilocalories] of corn. Assume that we feed it to cattle (as we
do with about 70 percent of the grain produced in the U.S.)…. The cow will produce about
2,000 kcal of usable energy from that 20,000 kcal of corn (assuming 10 percent efficiency;
the efficiency is actually somewhat higher than that, but 10 percent is easy to work with and
illustrates the point reasonably). That 2,000 kcal of beef would support one person for a day,
assuming a 2,000 kcal per day diet, which is common in the U.S. If instead people ate the
20,000 kcal of corn directly, instead of passing it through the cow, we would be able to
support more people for that given unit of land being farmed; not necessarily 10 times more,
because people are not as efficient as cattle at using corn energy, but considerably more than
the one that could be supported if the corn were passed through the cow first!
[So], we could support more people on Earth for a given area of land farmed if we ate lower
on the food chain—if we ate primary producers instead of eating herbivores (corn instead of
beef). Or, we could support the same number of people as at present, but with less land
degradation because we wouldn’t need to have so much land in production….
—Patricia Muir, Oregon State University
While 56 million acres of U.S. land are producing hay for livestock, only 4 million acres are
producing vegetables for human consumption.
—U.S. Department of Commerce, Census of Agriculture
Communicable Disease doesn’t travel from one place to another all by itself; it has to
hitchhike—whether in dirty water, the infected blood of rats or insects, or contaminated meat.
Globalization has vastly increased the mobility of all of these media, and one consequence is
that outbreaks which in past centuries might have been contained within a single village or
country until they died out are now quickly spread around the globe. When a case of mad
cow disease was detected in the United States in 2004, it was discovered that parts of that
single cow had been distributed to about a dozen different states. The problem of containing
outbreaks in a system of global distribution is exacerbated by the use of mass-production
facilities that rely on antibiotics rather than more costly cleaning of facilities to fend off
infection and disease. As antibiotic resistance increases worldwide, the movement of diseases
becomes increasingly unimpeded. Some of the most dangerous outbreaks result from the
growing illegal trade in bush meat, in which diseases harboured by forest primates, such as
HIV—which in the past might have remained sequestered in remote jungles—are now
brought into an unregulated global marketplace.
A report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture esti- mates that 89 percent of U.S. beef
ground into patties contains traces of the deadly E. coli strain.
—Reuters News Service
Animal waste contains disease-causing pathogens, such as Salmonella, E. coli,
Cryptosporidium, and fecal coliform, which can be 10 to 100 times more concentrated than in
human waste. More than 40 diseases can be transferred to humans through manure.
—Natural Resources Defense Council
According to the World Health Organization, more than 85 human deaths have resulted from
at least 95 cases of ebola reported in the Congo’s remote Cuvette-Ouest region. The tip-off to
a possible outbreak came when gorillas in the region began dying. Tests of their bodies
confirmed the cause of death…. Officials suspect the human outbreak stems from villagers
eating infected primates including chimps, monkeys, and gorillas…. When primates are
butchered and handled for bush meat, humans come into contact with contaminated blood.
People also get the disease when they eat the infected meat.
—Ebola Outbreak Linked to Bush meat, www.janegoodall.net
It is believed that a sub-species of chimpanzee in west-central Africa may be the original
source of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and that the transmission of the virus, a simian
immunodeficiency virus (SIV), to humans was the result of blood exposures from the
handling of chimpanzees killed by hunters.
—Jane Goodall, from a lecture at Harvard Medical School, 2002
Lifestyle disease, especially heart disease, might not have been regarded as an
“environmental” problem a generation ago. But it’s now clear that the vast majority of public
health problems are environmental, rather than genetic, in nature. Moreover, most
preventable diseases result from complex relationships between humans and the environment,
rather than from single causes. Heart disease is linked to obesity resulting both from
excessive consumption of sugar and fat (especially meat fat) and from lack of exercise
facilitated by car-oriented urban design. The environmental problems of suburban sprawl, air
pollution, fossil-fuel consumption, and poor land-use policies are also all factors in heart
disease.
The irony of the food production system is that millions of wealthy consumers in developed
countries are dying from diseases of affluence—heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, and cancer—
brought on by gorging on fatty grain-fed beef and other meats, while the poor in the Third
World are dying of diseases of poverty brought on by being denied access to land to grow
food grain for their families.
—Jeremy Rifkin, Los Angeles Times
Who says meat is high in saturated fat? This politically correct nutrition campaign is just
another example of the diet dictocrats trying to run our lives.
—Sam Abramson, CEO, Springfield Meats
Meat contributes an extraordinarily significant percentage of the saturated fat in the
American diet.
—Marion Nestle, chair of the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health, New
York University
Not only is mortality from coronary heart disease lower in vegetarians than in none
vegetarians, but vegetarian diets have also been successful in arresting coronary heart
disease. Scientific data suggest positive relationships between a vegetarian diet and reduced
risk for…obesity, coronary artery disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and some types of
cancer.
—American Dietetic Association
He is a heavy eater of beef. Me thinks it doth harm to his wit.
—William Shakespeare in Twelfth Night
The average age (longevity) of a meat eater is 63. I am on the verge of 85 and still work as
hard as ever. I have lived quite long enough and am trying to die; but I simply cannot do it. A
single beef-steak would finish me; but I cannot bring myself to swallow it. I am oppressed
with a dread of living forever. That is the only disadvantage of vegetarianism.
—George Bernard Shaw (1856–1950)
Biodiversity loss and threat of extinction:
Above and beyond the destruction of forests and grasslands for cattle ranching, and the
creation of oceanic dead zones by manure-laden runoff, the growing traffic in bush-meat is
decimating the remaining populations of gorillas, chimpanzees, and other primates that are
being killed for their meat. (A photo we received but declined to print in this issue shows a
severed gorilla’s head sitting in a food basket next to a bunch of bananas). As the planet
becomes more crowded, poor populations are increasingly venturing into wildlife reserves
looking for meat—and not always just for their own subsistence. In these areas, it’s not
enough just to say “eat less meat.” Here, the long-term solution will depend on stemming the
building of logging roads (which facilitate more rapid invasion by hunters) and stronger
protections against poaching and black-marketeering of bushmeat. It will also require more
equitable distribution of the world’s limited food output, and of the income with which to buy
it.
The real trouble has come in the last 10 years or so, as the big multinational companies,
particularly European companies, are opening up the [central African] forest with their roads.
Hunters from the towns can use the logging trucks to go along the roads…. They shoot
everything from elephants down to gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, monkeys, birds—
everything. They smoke it, they load it on the trucks and take it into the cities, where it’s not
to feed starving people—it’s where people will pay more for bushmeat than for domesticated
meat…. The pygmy hunters who’ve lived in harmony with the forest world for hundreds of
years are now being given guns and ammunition and paid to shoot for the logging camps.
And that’s absolutely not sustainable.”
—Jane Goodall in Benefits Beyond Boundaries, a film by Television Trust for the
Environment shown on BBC in 2003
The animals have gone, the forest is silent, and when the logging camps finally move, what is
left for the indigenous people? Nothing.
—Jane Goodall in Benefits Beyond Boundaries
Albert Einstein, who was better known for his physics and math than for his interest in the
living world, once said: - “Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances of
survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.” We don’t think he was
just talking about nutrition. Notice that in this article we haven’t said much at all about the
role of meat in nutrition, even though there’s a lot more to talk about than heart disease. Nor
have we gone into the ethics of vegetarianism, or of animal rights. The purpose of those
omissions is not to brush off those concerns, but to point out that on ecological and economic
grounds alone; meat-eating is now a looming problem for humankind. You don’t have to
have any conscience at all to know that the age of heavy meat-eating will soon be over as
surely as will the age of oil…
Of course one must use discernment here, ppl have axes to grind, movements are covertly co-
opted, and so on, so one must tread diligently in regards to information, but even so, it
becomes very clear, very quickly that there is absolutely no comparisons here in terms of
sustainability and natural harmony when one takes of the rose colour glasses of denial and
self-delusion and sees the meat diet for what it really is…
“And that entire part about what Andy Larsen said ( I am assuming he is some vegetarian nut
job advocate) just cracks me up”....
^^^^ Nut job hmmmmm why the need to demonize or put down? “not that I am a fan or this
guys PR agent, but calling him a nut job because he holds an apposing view to yours that’s
actually well researched “to a point” as always discernment is required, This mild defensive
attack under the gize of being “dismissive” is indicative of ppl that dictate that “anyone who
is of the opinion that 9-11 was an inside job or that chemtrails are real should be made to
ware tin foil hats, or to put it another way… “ad hominem”
“If there was benefit to eating meat we wouldn't gain energy from it”
^^^ Of course there are benefits to eating meat, “you could gain energy from eating a baby”
but the “only” benefit to eating meat is limited nutrition, off the back of that comes a whole
host of other problems that come with eating meat, after that it is an unsustainable practice
that’s based in debauchery, so the only benefit is the eating of the meat but not when
compared to the values one gets from fruit, veg, herbs spices, one clearly sees that there is no
need “unless we are talking extenuating circumstances and survival, one has to do what one
has to do” but the epicentre of this topic is about so called “civilized habitual ways of being”
via mind control, indoctrination and matriculation and the baseless lies that accompany such
kinds of social conditioning and the fact that using animals as food products in our society is
immoral and wrong and adds to the global state of decay…
“Meat is by far one of the best sources of protein and amino acids, (Remember not all plants
can be grown anywhere) Meat is also rich is Iron and zinc and also high in certain vitamins A
and D to be sure of but I know there are others.”
Ok that ^^^^ made me blurt out tea all over my mac in ridiculous laughter, I don’t know
where you are getting your information from but I think you have read “establishment pseudo
facts” that are pretty much telling you what you want to hear so then you can pass this off as
some kind of valid motion… (Remember not all plants can be grown anywhere) lol your
reaching again, plants grow “for the most part” on all of the inhabitable planet in its many
forms, there is far more vegetation, plants, herb’s grasses, trees and such, then there is of
anything else, lol dude you are in a hole man, stopping digging and learn when to put down
the shovle… Meat has been sold as the best source of protein in the same way that ppl were
sold on the calcium benefits of milk or Obama care, same chit different scam, ok let’s break
this down and put it in its correct place, remember complete proteins are important but it is
also the quality of the protein, and the other many many benefits that plants/veg offer, and the
irony is, most “farmed animals” are for the most part fed on plant based feed, or graze ground
provision “if the feed is meat based this is unnatural and unhealthy” so they are getting their
body building protein’s from plants “lol” the irony…
So “meat by far is better protein ah?”
1. Spirulina
Spirulina is 65 - 71 percent complete protein compared to beef, which is only 22 percent,
and lentils, which is only 26 percent.
In addition to being protein-rich, spirulina is an excellent source of vital amino acids and
minerals easily assimilated by your body. You would need to consume only two tablespoons
of spirulina as a protein substitute for a meal.
2. Hemp
Protein Content: Seeds, 6 g per ounce; Milk, 2 g per cup
If you're allergic to soy, or just freaked out by its estrogenic activity, hemp products are your
next best bet. Sold as a dairy alternative or as seeds, hemp is one of very few plant proteins
that supply you with all the essential amino acids, acids your body can't produce on its own to
build muscle and create more protein. The fatty acids in hemp seeds and hemp milk also
boost your immune system, and the crop itself is highly sustainable, growing as fast as 10
feet in 100 days and naturally requiring very few pesticides. <<note the sustainability factor
3. Chia Seeds
Protein Content: 4 g per ounce
Though the protein content isn't as high as some other vegetarian foods out there, chia seeds
pack a huge nutritional punch. For starters, they're an incredible fiber resource with nearly
half (11 g) of the amount you need every day in a single ounce. That helps fill you up and eat
fewer calories. They also contain 18 percent of your daily calcium requirement, more than
triple that of milk, which helps your bones. Chia seeds have no flavor, so you can add a
tablespoon to any food you wish to without altering its flavor, and unlike flax, chia seeds
don't need to be ground in order for your body to absorb all the nutrients.
4. Quinoa
Protein Content: 1 cup of cooked quinoa (185 g) contains 8.14 grams of protein.
Quinoa is perhaps one of the most perfect non-animal sources of protein on the planet. What
makes quinoa (pronounce keen-wah) Quinoa is a plant based source of complete protein.
"Complete" means that it contains all 9 of the essential amino acids that are crucial to human
function and health. It is also a wonderful option for those that follow a gluten free diet, since
it is completely gluten free.
5. Tempeh
Protein Content: A firmer, chewier cousin of tofu, a half-cup serving of this soybean-
based bite has 15 grams of protein.
Fermented foods ought to be part of everyone’s diet, vegetarian or not. Tempeh is one that is
chewy and delicious, even to die-hard burger fans. It’s healthy and a much better bet than
heavily processed tofu or “mock meats” that are brimming with poor-quality modified
proteins, sodium, chemicals and starchy fillers. In my opinion it doesn’t compare
nutritionally or in taste to a juicy steak but as vegetarian options go it ain’t half bad.
6. Almonds and Almond Butter
Protein Content: (between 6 and 8 grams, per handful).
When adding a handful of nuts to your salad for protein, go with almonds. Almond butter is
less toxic and allergenic than peanut butter, although the protein amounts are similar by
comparison. Still, this is about quality protein, not necessarily the amount.
7. Veggies
Yep, good old greens will pack a protein punch. One cup of cooked spinach has about 7
grams of protein. The same serving of French beans has about 13 grams. Two cups of cooked
kale? 5 grams. One cup of boiled peas? Nine grams.
8. Lentils and Beans
A cup of iron-rich lentils packs 18 grams of protein, almost as much as three ounces of
steak. One cup of chickpeas, contains 15 grams of protein, as does a cup of black or kidney
beans.
9. Organic, Plain, Greek Yogurt (not vegan)
Protein Content: 15 to 20 g per 6-ounce serving
All dairy products are good sources of protein. A glass of milk provides you with 8 g, but
Greek yogurt is a protein powerhouse, with twice the protein and half the sugar and carbs of
regular yogurt. In fact, Greek yogurt contains the same protein as a three-ounce serving of
lean meat. Top that with a handful of nuts and you could get half of your daily protein intake
at breakfast.
10. Eggs (not vegan)
Protein Content: 6 g per egg
There's a reason the incredible, edible egg is such a popular breakfast choice. The protein in
eggs has the highest biological value, a measure of how well it supports your body's protein
needs, of any food, including beef. And the yolks contain vitamin B12, deficiencies of which
are common in vegetarian diets and can cause attention, mood, and thinking problems while
raising blood homocysteine levels, a risk factor for heart disease, dementia, and Alzheimer's.
Hemp Seed Nutrition (hulled/shelled hemp seeds)
• Calories/100 g567
• Protein 30.6
• Carbohydrate 10.9
• Dietary Fiber 6
• Fat 47.2
• Saturated Fat 5.2
• Monounsaturated Fat 5.8
• Oleic 18:1 (Omege-9) 5.8
• Polyunsaturated Fat 36.2
• Linolenic 18:2 (Omega-6) 27.6
• Linolenic 18:3 (Omega-3) 8.7
• Linolenic 18:3 (omega-6) 0.8
• Cholesterol 0mg
• Vitamine A (B-Carotene) 4IU
• Thiamine (B1)1mg
• Riboflavin (B2) 1mg
• Vitamine C 1.0 mg
• Vitamine E 9 IU
• Sodium 9mg
• Calcium 74mg
• Iron 4.7mg
Dating back as far as 2700 B.C. hemp has been recorded as a source for not only clothes, but
for food as well. Even the founding fathers wrote about the virtue of hemp in food and
everything. There is an unstoppable amount of products that can be cooked up using hemp
seeds. The seed can be crushed, shelled, dehydrated, roasted, and from there it’s used to
create bread, milk, butter, cereal, or kept raw and added as an ingredient. The endless list of
benefits from the hemp plant. Fuel, paper, clothes, hair care, skin care, and so on up to 25,000
different uses and products from hemp alone (Popular Mechanics, 1938), and of course has
been proven to cure cancer… Unlike some other plants, hemp can grow in some of the
coldest, driest, hottest, and wettest areas across the globe. Meat can never ever come close to
this, on the point of hemp alone, the debate is done…
Note: Not All plants can offer up complete proteins, this is essential for building muscle, but
some plants do offer this, and because it is plant based and is intrinsic with fibre, it breaks
down and processes in the body far more quickly and effectively then meat does, meat has no
fibre and puts a tax on the body and liver, also mix and match a few veggies to get all the
protein you need, but also you will be getting way more than just protein, micro nutrients and
so on, meat cannot offer this…
….
Meat offers none of the above…
Meat does not offer none of the above
The Evidence speaks for it’s self…
Cha ching!!!! Is that bright light flashing above your head and resonating in your heart? Or
are you trying drown out the voice in your head that you obviously try to silence so one can
hold onto outdated, cruel, ineffective and destructive ways of living
Other than protein, Meat offers none of the added benefits of the above…
Again one might argue that with the toxic farming methods employed today it is no wonder
that cows milk is full of crap you would not wash your face in, let alone shove down a child's
throat, but Even if this was not the case and adequate methods were used to produce “cleaner
milk” still does not matter, milk is a form of Liquid protein, essential for calf’s and such in
there early stages of life when still growing, but in the semi early stages mothers milk yields
no more to the calf, the mother stops nursing up to about 10 months, the calf will seek
another form of sustenance “humans would do well to mimic this natural understanding”
bovine growth hormones and lacto intolerance, also, as stated milk is a fatty liquid protein,
and the thing about protein is it limits the body’s ability to absorb and processes calcium, btw
milk is one of the worst sources of calcium, the amount is minimal and also when you
consider what else is in milk, but one would not know this if one was to embrace the
propaganda put out by these toxic industries that seek to push the redundant meat diet in ever
ones faces… A few good reasons not to drink milk, once you start adding in how cows are
treated, how they are beefed up with a type of pharmaceutical crack to make their milk yields
super-efficient, the cow suffers horrendously and much of these toxic hormones and such end
up in the food chain, including, blood, puss and god knows what…
Meat does not offer the benefits of the above
Certain leafy green vegetables, spinach, and such are good sources of high quality calcium
far superior to milk in quality and amount, in particular chick peas are an excellent source of
calcium, milk from cows do not come close to the calcium intake above
There are significant health differences between vegetarians and meat-eaters, with the
majority of the positive ones falling on the side of the plant-eaters. Vegetarian diets
themselves differ: Ovo-vegetarians include eggs in their diet, lacto-vegetarians include milk
and lacto-ovo-vegetarians include both. There are two less restrictive categories, too:
pescatarians, who consume fish, and semi-vegetarians (“flexitarians”), who consume meat
occasionally. Regardless of the type of vegetarian, consuming a primarily plant-based diet
can yield a great deal of health advantages.
Characteristics of a Plant-Based Diet
Plant-based diets are naturally lower in calories, saturated fat and cholesterol than
carnivorous diets but are higher in fibre, vitamins, minerals and health-promoting
antioxidants. Plant-based nutrients include potassium, magnesium, folate and vitamins C and
E. This difference in nutritional value is likely responsible for the health benefits experienced
by vegetarians, but this is true only when the diet emphasises plants, avoids processed foods,
is balanced and includes variety.
Lower Risk of Disease for Vegetarians
Those who follow a plant-based diet are found to have lower cholesterol and blood pressure
levels and a lower risk of cardiovascular disease, stroke, cancers, type-2 diabetes and insulin
resistance. Those who eat meat frequently have a higher risk of cancer and overall disease.
Semi-vegetarians, who eat meat about once a week, do not reap the same level of benefit but
are still found to have intermediate protection against lifestyle diseases.
Vegetarians are less likely to develop food allergies, are less in danger of food born illnesses,
and consume fewer of the hormones and antibiotics that are administered to animals and
passed on to humans through the carnivorous food chain. Vegetarians are more likely to be
educated and health conscious, to exercise regularly and avoid cigarettes and alcohol. Clear
skin and increased energy levels are also benefits commonly seen among plant-eaters.
Better Mood, Better Sex
Eating plants can have a positive impact on your disposition and libido. A higher intake
results in more energy, calmness and feelings of happiness. These affects are experienced on
the days that vegetables and fruits are eaten and also throughout the following day. Plant
foods contain libido-boosting properties, and a lower body weight assists with increasing sex
hormones as well.
Potential Nutrient Deficiencies
Contrary to popular belief, vegetarians consume about the same amount of most key nutrients
as meat-eaters. Zinc and vitamin B-12 are of most concern, while intake of calcium, vitamins
A, C, D, E, magnesium and iron are typically no lower than that of meat-eaters. Vitamin B-12
can be challenging as it's mainly found in animal products. Plant sources include fortified
cereals, veggie burgers and nutritional yeast. Zinc is found in beans, pumpkin seeds, wheat
germ and dairy.
Plant Protein
Plant protein can adequately meet or even exceed recommended requirements when a variety
of plant foods are consumed. Eating whole grains and legumes (for example, rice and beans)
together creates complete proteins. These do not have to be eaten in the same meal and can
be spread throughout the day. Plant-based proteins are most favourable because they contain
beneficial nutrients such as complex carbohydrates, minerals, vitamins and fiber. Vegetable
protein sources include beans, peas, lentils, nuts, seeds and grains. Whether you're vegetarian
or not, these foods should be a central part of your diet. If you are considering going meat-
free and have any concerns, you can meet with a dietician to form a personalised plan to fit
your life, just make sure they know what they are talking about, a lot have gained their
certificates and such in establishment arenas of learning and matriculation, they end up being
mouth pieces of the corporate structure “if they know it or not” and magnified the problem by
way of disseminating the lie, the meat industry is embedded in this in all it’s permutations….
I could go on, verbatim, ad infinitum….
“So you are saying that people since the beginning of time have been wrong? Amazing it has
taken us what over 250,000 years to get to this point ? So from what I have read the entire
debate is over emotions induced by the processed food industry big pharma chemical over
load”
The only thing wrong here is your misunderstanding of history, going to establishment
history books or the history channel won’t help you if you seek truth, the rise of the meat diet
to the point when it became abnormal and vogue can for the most part be tracked back to
around the time of the rise of the Babylonian empire, “as mentioned before” studying history
from before that time, will show you a different story, there has always been an agenda to get
humans into consuming meat coming from a certain royal edict, a certain blood line and
hegemony because it is indicative of bloodletting and blood rituals or gradually acclimatises
one to that, it then puts a wedge between humans and nature/animals, it lowers the body’s
vibration and makes one more malleable and toxic and ripe for the overarching agenda,
slightly off topic but still relevant in the totality of this study, I don’t like to go down this
road “ancient civilizations” when segwaying from another topic because it is very extensive,
and one has to lay out the back ground and such just to bring a person up to scratch, when
one starts getting into civilisations and such it is very nuanced and convoluted, a lot of
muddying of the waters have gone on to conflagrate thought and knowledge, so this is a topic
best dealt with as a separate entity…. But I will also add 250,000.000 ppl or more supporting
an error or lie, does not give that lie or error any merit what so ever even if it continues to be
propagated over many eons…
And finally… I challenge you.. forget the facts, forget the stats, forget what you “think” you
know, go detox for about 2 to 3 weeks, in that time set your-self up with a veg fruit spice
herb diet, Brown rice, legumes/beans ground provision, limit meat intake to every Sunday
“make sure the test diet has what your body needs, this is the mistake a lot of newbie
vegetarians make, the tailored made diet is very important” if you was to do this, takes time
to get beyond that “need for the meaty taste” conditioning needs to be reconditioned, if you
did do this, “I know you won’t” and found an alternative that you’re really liked, you would
never go back, once you feel it in your sola plexus, that vibrating warmth and that warm
yummy swirl in your tummy, your Sacral chakra like a soothing candle glow, when you’re on
track with your higher self and nature, there is nothing no one can tell you or say to you that
will distract from the truth, no explanation will serve you better than the experience itself, the
only question is, do you have the balls for it… if you have tried it before… try it again… if at
first you don’t succeed….
I appeal to your higher self, your intuition, your capacity for intelligence and knowledge and
the potentiality of your potential wisdom, one cannot slay the demons that loom in shadow, if
one does not slay the demons from within first….
Further reading…
Green vegetables are all rich in protein, and relatively low in calories. They provide generous
amounts of most micronutrients with no cholesterol and virtually no fat. Meat on the other
hand, is relatively low in micronutrients. Remember whole grains, beans and seeds are also
high in protein and should be utilised to achieve adequate protein on a diet with no or
minimal animal products. But the point in this example was to illustrate how weight-loss
favourable green vegetables are and that no matter how many green vegetables you eat, you
still cannot take in too many calories. If you fill up on greens, they will reduce your desire
and ability to overeat.
Please note that 100 calories of steak is only about one ounce, which is not much meat to fill
you up. More typically, 4 – 8 ounces is eaten, supplying too many calories and too much
animal protein without the lifespan enhancing micronutrients. Bottom line—eat more greens
and less meat to get more micronutrient bang per caloric buck and to suppress your calorie
intake.
[C]omplementing proteins is not necessary with vegetable proteins. The myth that vegetable
source proteins need to be complemented is similar to the myths that persist about sugar
making one's blood glucose go up faster than starch does. These myths have great staying
power despite their being no evidence to support them and plenty to refute them.8
Jeff Novick, M.S., R.D.:
Recently, I was teaching a nutrition class and describing the adequacy of plant-based diets to
meet human nutritional needs. A woman raised her hand and stated, "I've read that because
plant foods don't contain all the essential amino acids that humans need, to be healthy we
must either eat animal protein or combine certain plant foods with others in order to ensure
that we get complete proteins."
I was a little surprised to hear this, since this is one of the oldest myths related to
vegetarianism and was disproved long ago. When I pointed this out, the woman identified
herself as a medical resident and stated that her current textbook in human physiology states
this and that in her classes, her professors have emphasized this point.
I was shocked. If myths like this not only abound in the general population, but also in the
medical community, how can anyone ever learn how to eat healthfully? It is important to
correct this misinformation because many people are afraid to follow healthful, plant-based,
and/or total vegetarian (vegan) diets because they worry about "incomplete proteins" from
plant sources. ...if you calculate the amount of each essential amino acid provided by
unprocessed plant foods ... you will find that any single one, or combination, of these whole
natural plant foods provides all of the essential amino acids. ...
Modern researchers know that it is virtually impossible to design a calorie-sufficient diet
based on unprocessed whole natural plant foods that is deficient in any of the amino acids.
(The only possible exception could be a diet based solely on fruit.)9
John A. McDougall, M.D.:
Many people believe than animal foods contain protein that is superior in quality to the
protein found in plants. This is a misconception dating back to 1914, when Osborn and
Mendel studied the protein requirements of laboratory rats.[11]... Based on these early rat
experiments the amino acid pattern found in animal products was declared to be the standard
by which to compare the amino acid pattern of vegetable foods. According to this concept,
wheat and rice were declared deficient in lysine, and corn was deficient in tryptophan. It has
since been shown that the initial premise that animal products supplied the most ideal protein
pattern for humans, as it did for rats, was incorrect.... From the chart, it is clear that even
single vegetable foods contain more than enough of all amino acids essential for humans....
Furthermore, many investigators have found no improvement by mixing plant foods or
supplementing them with amino acid mixtures to make the combined amino acid pattern look
more like that of flesh, milk, or eggs.[35-44] ... People have actually lived for long periods of
time in excellent health by satisfying their entire nutritional needs with potatoes and water
alone.[33] ... Nature has designed vegetable foods to be complete. If people living before the
age of modern dietetics had had to worry about achieving the correct protein combinations in
their diets, our species would not have survived for these millions of years.10
Andrew Weil, M.D.:
You may have heard that vegetable sources of protein are "incomplete" and become
"complete" only when correctly combined. Research has discredited that notion so you don't
have to worry that you won't get enough usable protein if you don't put together some
magical combination of foods at each meal.10.5
Charles Attwood, M.D.:
Beans, however, are rich sources of all essential amino acids. The old ideas about the
necessity of carefully combining vegetables at every meal to ensure the supply of essential
amino acids has been totally refuted.11
The original source of the protein combining myth recants!
Interestingly, it's very easy to trace the protein combining myth to its original source: A
bestselling book called Diet for a Small Planet, in 1971. The author, Frances Moore-Lappé,
wanted to promote meatless eating because meat production wastes horrific amounts of
resources. But she knew her readers would think you couldn't get enough protein on a
vegetarian diet, so she set out to reassure them, by telling them that if they carefully
combined various plant foods, like rice and beans, the inferior plant proteins would become
just as "complete" as the ones in meat.
Lappé got her idea from studies that were done 100 years ago, on rats. The researchers
found that rats grew best when the proteins in their diets were in the same proportions as
found in animal foods. From this finding, animal proteins were arbitrarily labelled first-class
while plant proteins were deemed inferior. The problem with this conclusion is that rats are
not simply smaller version of people. Baby rats actually need a higher percentage of protein
than baby humans, because they grow a lot faster. People grow slowly. It takes a baby half a
year to double its birth weight. A rat does it in only four and a half days.4.8
So clearly rats
are going to need more protein. In fact, rat milk is a whopping 49% protein4.9
— much higher
than the mere 6% found in human mother's milk.
Lappé's idea of protein combining spread like wildfire. Soon the National Research
Council and the American Dietetic Association, without bothering to verify the hypothesis,
joined in by saying that plant proteins were inferior and had to be combined.4.6
But it wasn't long before Lappé realized her mistake, and owned up to it. In the 1981
edition of Diet for a Small Planet, she recanted:
In 1971 I stressed protein complementarity because I assumed that the only way to get
enough protein ... was to create a protein as usable by the body as animal protein. In
combating the myth that meat is the only way to get high-quality protein, I reinforced another
myth. I gave the impression that in order to get enough protein without meat, considerable
care was needed in choosing foods. Actually, it is much easier than I thought.
With three important exceptions, there is little danger of protein deficiency in a plant food
diet. The exceptions are diets very heavily dependent on [1] fruit or on [2] some tubers, such
as sweet potatoes or cassava, or on [3] junk food (refined flours, sugars, and fat). Fortunately,
relatively few people in the world try to survive on diets in which these foods are virtually the
sole source of calories. In all other diets, if people ar getting enough calories, they are
virtually certain of getting enough protein."13
[emphasis in original]
Moore-Lappé has always been one of my heroes, and this is one reason why. Anyone
can make a mistake, but it takes someone of integrity to own up to it. Especially when
that mistake was instrumental in the person's success in the first place. And the mistake
aside, Moore-Lappé pretty much single-handedly jump-started the vegetarian movement in
the U.S. in 1971, and deserves a place in history for that alone.
In any event, if you came to this page with the idea in your head that plant proteins
have to be combined, I hope it means something to you that the person responsible for that
idea being in your head in the first place said that she was wrong.
It's ironic, isn't it? Everyone who has the mistaken idea about protein combining got it from
Moore-Lappé, directly or indirectly, but she took it back.
What's really crazy is how many people cling to the myth even after learning that
Moore-Lappé admitted she was wrong. It would be akin to the news reporting that there
was an earthquake in Japan, then correcting themselves and saying that the earthquake was
actually in China, but people insisting on believing the earthquake was in Japan simply
because that's what the news said first. Likewise, most people insist on believing that plants
are incomplete even though the person responsible for getting that thought into their heads in
the first place now says it's not true.
Digestibility is not a problem
Some critics have screamed at me that plant protein isn't digested as well as animal
protein. Once again, these critics haven't bothered to look up the numbers.
The protein in beef and fish in 94% digestible. That's actually less than the digestibility
than plant foods like white flour (96%) and peanut butter (95%). Peas, rice, whole corn, soy
flour, oatmeal, and whole wheat flour aren't far behind (86-88%). Beans, despite their high
protein content, are a bit further down on the digestibility scale (78%).3 (By the way, the
WHO report didn't list other vegetables, or I would have listed them here.)
This shows that digestibility isn't a problem at all, in practical terms. Plant foods still
provide more than enough protein, even after considering lower digestibility. From the
numbers above, the protein in meat is digested 20.5% better than that of beans. If we take
someone with a higher than average need for protein (10% of calories), and add 20.5% to that
figure to account for lower digestibility, we now need 12.5% protein instead of 10%. And
again, grains average 13% protein and vegetables average 22%—more than enough.
Protein quality is not a problem
Some critics have pointed to various measures of protein quality, such as PDCAAS, which
say that plant protein is inferior. Such critics are missing the obvious: The quality measures
are mostly based on the amounts of amino acids in foods, and I've already explained in detail,
with a nice chart, using numbers from official sources, that vegetables absolutely contain as
much or more than you need of each individual amino acid. That is, plant foods provide
more than enough protein even after you account for any differences in digestion or protein
quality. Your body doesn't care whether the protein quality of what you're eating is "very
high" vs. simply "high". It's concerned only that you eat enough. As long as your body is
getting as much protein as it actually needs, it doesn't matter what form the protein comes in.
1.
1.
Critics are confusing more with better. Yes, animal foods have more protein, but that's not a
benefit. There's absolutely no advantage to eating way more protein than your body can
use. If you need 2500 calories a day, would you be healthier with 3000 calories a
day? No. In fact, eating that much more than you need would be detrimental to your
health. The same is true of eating too much protein. Excess protein intake has been linked to
bone loss, osteoporisis, kidney damage, kidney stones, immune dysfunction, arthritis, cancer
promotion, low-energy, and overall poor health.13.3
The science on this is very clear.
1.
Vegan diets supply plenty of protein for building muscle
Plant foods supply plenty of protein even for athletes and those trying to build muscle.
In a recent study older adults doing either lower-body or whole-body resistance training
increased their muscle strength and mass on the US RDA for protein of only 0.36 g per lb. of
body weight.14.5
For a 120-lb. person eating 2000 calories or a 180-lb. person eating 2500
calories, that's 8.6% to 10.4% of their diets as protein. And remember, vegetables average
22% protein and beans 28%.
Another study suggested that established bodybuilders need around 0.48 g of protein
per pound of body weight per day (1.05 g/kg).15
(Incidentally, it also found that
bodybuilders required 1.12 times and endurance athletes required 1.67 times more daily
protein than sedentary controls.) For an 180-lb. athlete the 0.48 g/lb. figure is 90 grams (360
calories from protein). For a 3000-calorie diet, that's 12% of calories from protein. And
again, vegetables average 22% and beans 28%.
Those starting a muscle-building program may need more protein, 0.77 g/lb. (1.7 g/kg).16
For a 180-lb. athlete that's 139 grams (556 calories). On a 3000-calorie diet, that's 18.5%, still
less than supplied by common vegetables.
If the athlete eats more than 3000 calories a day, or weighs less than 180 lbs., then the
percentage of protein required goes down even more.
In 2009 three major health organizations endorsed the 0.5 to 0.8 g/lb. (1.2-1.7 g/kg)
figures above (American Dietetic Association, Dietitians of Canada and the American
College of Sports Medicine)17
More is not better. As one paper said, "Ingesting more protein than necessary to maintain
protein balance during training (e.g., >1.8 g/kg/d) does not promote greater gains in strength
or fat-free mass."17.5
.
Jack Norris, RD points out that nutrient recommendations are always "padded" with
safety margins. That is, most people need less:
Considering the information reviewed above...it seems reasonable to conclude that the
protein needs of most vegan bodybuilders are somewhere between 0.8 and 1.5 g/kg (0.36 and
0.68 g/lb) of body weight....
The Food and Nutrition Board, which sets the RDA, reviewed Lemon et al.'s study and others
and concluded there is no sufficient evidence to support that resistance training increases the
protein RDA of 0.80 g/kg [0.36 g/lb] for healthy adults.18
For more on protein and muscle-building, see my separate article on Protein &
Strength.
Other objections
I get lots of misinformed objections to this article, but some of it is really wacky. One
particular objection is that my use of recommendations from the World Health Organization
(WHO) is wrong, because supposedly the WHO's recommendations are designed only to
prevent extreme malnourishment among impoverished third-world residents.
Such critics have apparently never actually read a WHO report, since WHO reports say the
exact opposite. For example:
• "The levels of energy intake recommended by this expert consultation
are based on estimates of requirements of healthy, well-nourished individuals."18.5
(emphasis in original)
• "[T]he objective of this report is to make recommendations for healthy,
well-nourished populations..."18.5
• "The requirement...can be accepted as the best estimate of a population
average requirement for healthy adults."3
A number of people have also complained about my statement that lettuce has more
than enough protein (26%), because, they say, to get a day's worth of calories from it (e.g.,
2000 calories), you'd have to eat 31 pounds of it. Others suggest that even for higher-calorie
foods, it would be boring to eat just one food. Here's an example of such criticism:
How to lie with (food) statistics: [To] get 2000 calories out [lettuce], you would need to eat
more than 14 kilos of the stuff. [Bluejay's] article cites 19 different sources. Yet by a single
bullcannon claim - a true one! - it utterly fails the common sense test. Hint: DO NOT USE
water-lettuce to boost yer average fer protein levels in veggies. This is on a par in stupidity
level with suggesting that just because 7-UP isn't alcoholic you can still get drunk on it if you
have at least 50 litres. (source)
I'm hesitant to answer this, because if the answer isn't already glaringly obvious to these
critics or those who believe them, can they even understand the explanation? But here goes
anyway:
The reason we look at the protein you'd get by eating an entire day's worth of calories from a
single food is that this is simply a handy method of comparing the protein content of various
foods, not to suggest that anyone should or even could eat 31 pounds of lettuce. Sure, you
can't eat 31 pounds of lettuce in a day, but whatever amount of lettuce you do eat helps (and
doesn't hurt) your protein intake. You could certainly eat 1% of your calories as lettuce, and
if you did, that lettuce would supply more than 1% of your protein needs. Ergo, lettuce
supplies sufficient protein.
The "getting drunk on 7-UP" analogy is ridiculous. 7-UP doesn't have any alcohol, but
lettuce does have protein. (And more protein than you need, calorie per calorie.)
It's really meat that's incomplete
When you think about it, it's kind of silly to single out protein, just one of the many
nutrients, just so we can declare plant proteins to be incomplete (although they're not).
Why aren't we declaring meat to be an incomplete vitamin? Because it is, you know. For
example, beef is completely devoid of Vitamin C, an essential nutrient without which you'd
die. And beef doesn't just have a lower level of this essential nutrient, it has zero. So why
didn't the authorities ever caution us that we need to combine various foods to get a complete
vitamin?
But actually, no combination of meat will make a complete vitamin, since every single
kind of common meat has zero Vitamin C. And it's deficient in other vitamins as well. So
while plants aren't actually deficient in protein, meat is definitely deficient in vitamins. But
I'm sure you never heard about vitamin deficiency in animal foods. All you've heard about is
the supposed deficiency of protein in plants.
And speaking about biases, the whole protein-combining idea supposes that vegetarians
are eating just one food, which is allegedly incomplete. Okay, how many people do you
know who eat one food? And since nobody eats just one food, the whole idea of protein
combining would be unnecessary anyway, even if it were true. So here again, what would be
the point of harping on protein combining when it doesn't matter?
Using some common sense
The largest land animals in the world, elephants, are exclusively vegetarian. They grow
up to 10,000 pounds, by eating nothing but plant matter. They couldn't grow so big if plants
weren't loaded with protein.
Amazingly, many readers have protested this by saying "But we're not elephants!", as
though they've made some sort of point. If they mean to suggest that elephants don't need
protein, they're wrong: Every living creature on the planet does. Elephants don't have some
magical superpower which allows them to live and grow without eating protein. They need it,
eat it, and use it, like everyone and everything else.
Perhaps the point was supposed to be that elephants utilize protein differently? Not in
any meaningful way. All protein, whether plant or animal, is broken down into the individual
amino acids before the body uses it. And that goes for anybody, elephant, human, or
otherwise.
Maybe the idea was that elephants get enough protein from plants only because they eat
so much? No, because once you adjust for body weight, elephants eat less than we do. Per
100 lbs. of body weight, Americans eat about 3 lbs. of food per day, while elephants eat only
1.9. 13.5
And elephants aren't the only huge vegetarian animals roaming the planet. There are
also horses, camels, giraffes, elk, rhinos, cattle, and more. Clearly if these massive animals
are eating only plants, then plants have more than sufficient protein.